|
Poster:
|
leftwinger57 |
Date:
|
August 27, 2012 03:57:17pm |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
about the lunar landing |
This always bugged me about the moon landing.No I'm not one of those conspericy freaks who think it was stagged,but can someone tell me who set up the camera to take those pictures.It wasn't on the lander itself ,so did Armstrong first set up the camera,go back and then do his walk?
And just one more thing,about todays tv and these so called reality shows.What's the reasoning behind the taping over or blurring out of logos.Thom Beers the producer of many shows does this all the time and I thought as the old gag goes any publicity is good publicity.I know I have to much time on my hands but hey I watch alot of tv...
|
Poster:
|
fenario80 |
Date:
|
August 27, 2012 04:32:13pm |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: about the lunar landing |
What's the reasoning behind the taping over or blurring out of logos. -
Companies pay big money to have their products placed in TV shows. If you can clearly see any real product in any TV show or movies, you can be sure the placement was paid for. With reality TV shooting all over the place in people's homes, cars, etc., lots of stuff now gets "on-camera" that has to be blurred out because it hasn't been paid for.
If the "free" stuff wasn't blurred, it would piss off the people who DID pay to have their stuff placed in the program, and could also cause problems with advertisers, who are often exclusive to particular programs:
e.g., E! TV can tell Coca-cola "you will be our only soft drink advertiser during Keeping Up With the Kardashians," but what if someone on the show is seen drinking a Pepsi? That's bad for Coke, and bad for E! who don't ever want to give away the publicity for free in the first place. Safest bet is to blur everything that was not paid for outright.
I don't know much about the moon landing, but seem to remember that Armstrong stepping down from the ladder was done twice, staged the second time for a camera that he set up. Wikipedia probably knows.
|
Poster:
|
leftwinger57 |
Date:
|
August 27, 2012 05:26:14pm |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: about the lunar landing |
thank you ,now that makes all the sense in the world to me.It's annoying but I guess in this day and age you pay to play.
I'll check wiki in a minute but I still think it's a great question.
|
Poster:
|
Purple Gel |
Date:
|
August 27, 2012 05:31:01pm |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: about the lunar landing |
I once had a guy tell me that we could never have gotten to the moon because it would take a space vehicle with an impossibly huge fuel tank to make it to the moon. He said "even if you got 100 miles to the gallon it would take 5,000 gallons of fuel to get there and back.". I laughed. and reminded him of one of the basic laws of Physics that we learned in the first day of high school physics: a body in motion tends to remain in motion unless it is acted upon by a counter force, and since Space is a vacuum there is no counter force so you don't need to keep burning fuel once you've broken the bonds of Earth's gravitational and you've achieved your cruising speed. Essentially your "MPG" is infinite and you only need small amounts of fuel to alter course and slow down to land, lift off or re-enter Earth's atmosphere.
Here are the mythbusters addressing some of the moon landing deniers' "evidence".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtWMz51eL0Y&;feature=relmfu
TVNews
OpenLibrary